Why Monarchy Requires Aristocracy And Feudalism

by Brett Stevens, originally published in Amerika.org

The modern time traps us in a hopelessly short-sighted mentality where we see power as something that comes from a consensus of people, is delegated to a government, which then uses laws and the threat of police to enforce it. Since this is all we know, we cannot see outside the four walls of that model.

However, such mass culture remains a modern notion, and societies throughout history have periodically re-discovered a more natural state in which they have kings instead of either mob rule or dictators. Populations turn to this type of leadership because they realize that it has no incentive to exploit them, and in fact, succeeds only when they do.

Making the situation more complex, monarchy is not a system or government, or even simply a way of leadership. It is a structure to a type of civilization which we have forgotten, and the Leftists in our schools and magazines will never report favorably on it if they can avoid it.

With monarchy, we escape the constant infighting by special interest groups that mars democracy. When power is contestable, it becomes constantly contested, and we spend much of our time and energy figuring out who “should” be in charge. With monarchy, we have one leader whose power is not up for grabs.

This does not mean, however, that there is not an understructure to that power. Monarchy requires aristocracy, which means a cascade of authority beneath the king who serve as advisers, staff, and sometimes, replacements:

Below, a ranking of the British nobility:

Duke (Duchess)

Created in 1337, the title, Duke, derives from the Latin word dux, meaning leader, and is the highest form of non-Royal nobility (although members of the Royal Family sometimes carry the title). In French, the term is duc and in Italian, doge. Dukes in the United Kingdom are addressed as ‘Your Grace’. There are twenty-seven dukedoms in the peerages of England, Scotland, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom, held by twenty-four persons.

Marquess (Marchioness)

The term, Marquess, derives from the Germanic word, mark, which refers to a border. In Britain, the title was created in 1385; the borders in question are the marches between England and Wales or Scotland. The normal form of address is Lord/Lady.

Earl (Countess)

The term, Earl, derives from the Old Norse word, jarl, meaning warrior, nobleman. The continental equivalent is Count, which derives from the Latin word, comes. In Britain, the title began to be used c.800, replacing the old Anglo Saxon title of Ealdorman. The Earl was the king’s official representative in the shires (counties). The normal form of address is Lord/Lady.

Viscount (Viscountess)

Created in 1440, the title, Viscount, comes from the Latin vicecomes, or vice-count. The viscount was a sheriff of a shire (county) and was the Earl’s deputy. The normal form of address is Lord/Lady.

Baron (Baroness)

The title, Baron, derives from the Old Germanic word, baro, meaning freeman. Created c.1066, a Baron is the lowest rank of the peerage, and is usually applied to tenants-in-chief, the holders of land granted to them directly by the monarch. The normal form of address is Lord/Lady.

Baronet (Baronetess)

Created 1611. A special hereditary rank, above Knight and below Baron, introduced by James I for the purpose of raising money for the suppression of the rebellion in Ulster. Baronets were required to pay £1,080 for the privilege of their rank. The normal form of address is Lord/Lady.

Knight

The most common title, allowing the holder to call himself Sir or herself Lady. A knighthood is not transferable, lasting only for the lifetime of the holder. The term, knight, has come to be identified with a mounted warrior in service of his sovereign, but the earliest known usage of the term in Britain was Alfred the Great’s knighting of his infant grandson, Athelstan (c.890). So, in its original form, a knighthood may have carried religious or political significance as a sign of investiture.

Voting scrambles the minds of human beings. Instead of thinking about what should be done, they think about what they are likely to gain consensus about, and so they constant adjust their sentiments to fit that anticipated compromise. (Political correctness works in a similar manner.)

In an aristocracy, a hierarchy exists even within these roles, as some are recognized as more excellent than others. When a quandary arises, the best of them meet, and come to a decision, and then use their power to advance that as a solution. This can mean a recommendation to the monarch, or an offer of retirement if a truly terrible monarch arises.

Otherwise, as in other power systems, the advisers make their presence known and guide even a bad leader toward good decisions. Aristocracy is an informal system, so they do not make official pronouncements, but interact with their king through social events and open discussion on these issues.

More importantly, lesser aristocrats serve the king by administrating specific policies at his request, and by ruling over local areas where they handle the day-to-day affairs. This keeps stability and order without requiring the micromanagement through rule-making that modern systems entail.

Aristocracy in turn creates a caste system, or ranking of people by where they stand in the social order. This means that people are given a position from which they can fall if they fail to fulfill its needs; these positions are not careers, but places in society, where each person can influence others and those who do well are considered more important than the rest.

Caste systems generally divide populations into the rabble, serfs, peasants, proles, plebs, or drones, who make up about ninety percent of the group. Then there is another nine percent who are artisans, warriors, and craftsmen, roughly corresponding to our middle class. Finally, there is the one percent, or those who are born to lead and be influential, and from that come the aristocracy.

Exceptional individuals who have risen to the top of their caste can ascend to a higher caste, but this applies only to those who independently understand the world above their station and rise far above what is expected of them. Those who on the other hand become degenerate or fail at their roles are pushed downward, since they no longer deserve the privilege they once had.

In this way, civilization maintains its order organically, always promoting the best and demoting the worst. The castes, optimized as they are for the tasks before them, each have enough authority to do what they must but not too much. All relates at the top to the monarchy, who is responsible for the success or failure of the nation as a whole.

Please follow and like us:

3987